Bills, Initiatives, and the Commission?

[Sytes]

For the gurus on the political side of fish and wildlife issues - help us Joes and Janes better understand the intent / use and desired function for the means of 'regulating'.

We have some very knowledgable HT members here and I believe sometimes there is a separation between high tech talk and general chatter. I personally appreciate guidance on issues from those I respect for their knowledge here though more importantly I want to understand the mechanics of opinions.

We had Initiative 161 that was hailed as a positive for public hunters - especially here.
We had HB 73 hailed as a positive for accomodating control wolf populations.
We have the PL/PW Council for FWP that provide recommendations - many supported by outdoors enthusiasts.

There is a massive list of bills currently under review: http://fwp.mt.gov/fwpDoc.html?id=58194

I-161 was not the first nor will be the last Initiative passed via public vote for F&G topics of interest.

Some here pose the question the state house and senate should butt out and leave it to the commission - yet those same hail the wolf bill, vote in support of 161, etc. Is it only a "butt out" when something not favorable, yet applaud when personally desired?

Where is this agenda line drawn on the commission vs HB/SB, and Initiatives? Are there times where the commission fails thus people move for initiatives or call upon their legislators to assist?

I don't pretend to be a guru - nor would I have a chance at fooling people - thus am very open that I am a rookie when it comes to the political side of F&G issues.

Would someone break down the pro's vs con's of each and why use is supported for some bills, initiatives then other occasions those drafting bills/initiatives are called to butt out of F&G commission issues? Why there is a legislative committee for F&G issues?

Occasionally it appears as though hypocrisy amongst our own occurs - though this may simply be due to a lack of understanding on the structure and use of legislative, initiative and commission functions.

I am all for sending e-mails, phone calls, etc... I am all for support of issues our resident gurus find valuable or destructive so don't get me wrong on the intent of this thread. I believe many feel a bit at a loss (from occasional PM's on topics discussed). Flame away or discuss this so other jane and john hunters may better understand. Or stay quiet then complain later why some here don't get it on issues of F&G interest.

Cheers.

 

[Mudranger1]

Some here pose the question the state house and senate should butt out and leave it to the commission - yet those same hail the wolf bill, vote in support of 161, etc. Is it only a "butt out" when something not favorable, yet applaud when personally desired?


Occasionally it appears as though hypocrisy amongst our own occurs

I am all for sending e-mails, phone calls, etc... I am all for support of issues our resident gurus find valuable or destructive so don't get me wrong on the intent of this thread. I believe many feel a bit at a loss (from occasional PM's on topics discussed). Flame away or discuss this so other jane and john hunters may better understand. Or stay quiet then complain later why some here don't get it on issues of F&G interest.

Cheers.

Got to say this little note hits the nail on the head for me....pretty much exactly how I feel thanks Sytes

 

[Big Fin]

Some things are not within Commission powers, rather can only be changed via the Legislative process. Example being law changes that allow multiple tags for wolf hunting. That was not a power of the Commission. It was a power of the Commission to do so in trapping, as the legislature had previously granted the Commission the power to issue multiple trapping tags.

In many states, Commission powers have been reigned in by legislators and Governors. They want more control. Example of Commission powers would be:

Setting season dates
Approving tag numbers
Determining equipment restrictions
Approving land acquisitions
Approving management plans
Approving limits
Most things related to management

Often, people don't like what the Commission does and they go to the legislature, find a sympathetic legislator, and try to get the outcome they want. That is usually where things get sideways.

Often, legislators do things the general public does not support. That can result in a ballot initiative. Those initiatives are expensive, difficult, and often result in unintended consequences, the same as some legislation.

It really comes down to who has what responsibility for what type of actions. Which body has powers to take what action. Legislators, most of whom are only engaged in the issue for a ten minute discussion, many of whom don't hunt/fish, are usually not the best folks to be make wildlife decisions. Just a function of knowledge and background to make good decisions. Legislators often have a very local bent toward wildlife, which in a state like Montana, where the east is mostly private, the west is mostly public, and we have different wildlife issues in each part of the state, legislation that applies a law across the entire state, is usually a bad idea. Same can be said for Commission decisions that try to make a one-size-fits-all policy. The "one size" decisions seem to come for the legislature in regular frequency.

Here are some examples of the Montana Legislature stepping into what has most often been a Commission policy. I am sure other states are experiencing similar issues.

SB 83 - Changing bighorn sheep reintroduction policy. The Commission has already adopted an extensive Conservation Strategy that the Department spent years developing. One PO'd legislator decides he doesn't like how FWP did something, so he introduces a bill that would pretty much end sheep transplants.

HB312 - Test and slaughter of elk. FWP has management strategies, objectives, and a lengthy elk management plan for each district in the state. All was approved by the Commission after lengthy public input. A legislator gets upset and decides he wants to change the entire policy for one of the largest herds in the state. He wants to test and slaughter elk, the same as we do for bison, and he wants hunters to foot the bill.

SB151 - Unlimited archery permits in areas with very limited rifle permits. After two previous legislative sessions, two citizens committees, some people are still upset that they did not get their way with what the Commission adopted. So, they go to the legislature, for the third time, to try get things changed to the way they want them.

Those are just a few of the instances of the last couple months where the Legislature tried to change things that are Commission decisions.

The wolf bill you mention needed to be legislatively changed. The Department and the Commission helped craft the bill and went to the Legislature asking for the changes of that bill.

Once one understands the powers vested to each body, it is easier to see why some actions are opposed by hunters, some are supported, and hopefully clears times where their may be the appearance of hypocrisy.

Hope that helps.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Big Fin layed it out clearly, with some recent specific examples of "end-around" legislative proposals.

A good example of the initiative process was I-143, Montana Game Farm Reform. A strongly and widely expressed Montana concern about elk (and other game) farms expanding, high fence hunting, potential for spread of wildlife disease, and a real case where an infected domestic elk herd had to be eradicated at state expense resulted in a citizen-driven initiative. It should have been accomplished through the legislature, but with the agricultural industry being the stong economic driver and the predominant political force then and now, it was not an issue to be resolved though that politically structured branch of state government. Sportsmen, wildlife advocates, conservationists, and many other groups and citizens worked collaboratively to get it on the November ballot and it passed. The underlying issue concerning whether or not it was a "taking" has been vetted, argued, and resolved through the judicial process by several judiciary levels and now is put to rest. The main point is that it was state law above the authority of the FWP Commission and not something to even get a fair hearing by the legislature, so Montana citizens took the "initiative" to get it resolved in concert with the will of the people.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Excellent post!

1. I don't think it's ever a bad idea to all folks out on their position. If they can't articulate why something is good or bad, then they probably don't know why they feel the way they do.

In general, I've always believed that the day to day decisions, things like management of wildlife species, allocation of licenses, allowing or disallowing certain types of ammunition, lighted nocks, etc are best left to the group of people we have entrusted to make those decisions: the commission. I don't always agree with commission decisions, but I'd rather have those decisions made by people who recieve the most information from the widest variety of sources. I also strongly believe that the more regulations that are placed in statute, the less flexibility there is to manage wildlife across a wide variety of habitats and social structures (eastern versus western MT, for example). Commission decisions are generally less influenced by party politics and are usually made to benefit the resource first.

Legislation is a critial component of wildlife management in that the statutes help set the overiding regulatory famework for which the decisions can be made. In the case of HB 73, many parts were needed in order to allow for the Commission to issue multiple tags, remove the prohibition on electronic calls, etc. some parts were unessecary, such as the removal of the hunter orange requirement (commission already had that authority and utilized it), elimiate ability of commission to close areas (we're going to regret that later). But that's how politics works - there are always trade-offs in order to get something needed. Bills like SB 83 come forward because a legislator has a personal vendeta or issue and they think the broad application of statute makes more sense both politically and from their own perspective regardless of the science or on the ground realities of what they propose. Other legislation, like SB 123 sets in statute a program like Hunters Against Hunger that needs legislative approval because it deals with money. In the end, the MT state constitution becomes a guiding light in what is appropriate and what is not just as much as whether or not i like a bill. What we see lately is a large slug of bills that are personal in nature, unconstitutional, or just bad policy decisions based off of decisions made by the commission that one person or party doesn't like. Ieal legislation is something that brings all sides together well before the session to work out the wrinkles, like bridge access or HB 73.

Initiatives are usually a last chance. When a signifiant impasse is reached on a concept that folks feel would benefit the core audience or resource, folks will take an initiative to the ballot. I-143 is a great example of this. For years folks tried to get rid of ame farms through the usual means, only to get shut down in the Legislature. A coalition developed and funds were raised. The initiative process works as a last resort. I'll let others answer the question of I-161.

Is there a large helping of hypocrisy in politics? Yes. Am I going to use every tool available to me to advance a positive agenda for wildlife and the outdoor economy? You bet. Will I be a zealous defender of the separation of the executive and legislative branches in terms of the North American Model and the course of direction laid out by those willing to try and take politics out of the wildlife managment world? Absolutely.

 

[BRI]

Thanks for posing the question Sytes. I often wonder many of the same but generally don't want to ask anything as many times it turns into a pissing match between a few and it can be tough for the average folks to sort out. I think that is why the lurkers greatly outnumber the posters.

There are times when the commission (and FWP administration) acts against the will of the public too. Recent expample is the Elk B licenses. When they proposed those, the meeting I went to was nearly 90% against. The meetings my father, brother and friends went to were similar. When I requested the survey monkey results and read through them, it was overwhelmingly against. Even the biologists I talked to were against it. I was surprised to see it pass and when my father spoke to one of the commissioners and asked why they would support something that the public appeared to be overwhelmingly against, he was told "We were only acting on the recommendation of the Department". It appeared there was a big disconnect from the Commission, Administration of the Department, the field personnel, and the public. Of course that was the last administration and I believe Mr. Hagener will build back some of that trust. At least I hope so.

 

[Straight Arrow]

BRI, that's a good example of "elk tolerance" level overriding scientific wildlife management and sportsmen public opinion.

 

[shoots-straight]

Is what the public doesn't realize about the commission and the Department at times, is the policy to guide the agency is set forth by the legislature, and that the agency is required by law to follow that policy. Many times the commission and the Department has to do things the public doesn't want because of it.

As Straight Arrow touched on. HB 42 passed in 2003 forced the Dept. to pick Elk objectives for every hunting district in the state. The catch was they weren't told to use scientific data for the numbers, but were told to use socially acceptable numbers heavily influenced by the agricultural industry.

At the same time, the legislature also has department haters that want to defund the agency for a number of reasons. They passed HB 607 last session that let non resident hunters turn back their license after they didn't draw a special tag. Then if the tags were resold the money went to a different account than normal. So the block program lost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The Commission knows the budget crunch caused in large part by the legislative meddling, and the problem of elk populations being to high, because of more meddling by the legislature.

So even though the public didn't like Elk B tags, it did 2 things. First they had to comply with over populations of elk because of HB 42. So it killed more cow elk, and secondly, it did so with increased revenue. Money needed to keep Block management running because of the loss by HB 607.

That shows an example of how laws the legislature passes can have effects they don't understand or maybe they do. I'm not sure many of them care too much.

Sportsman need to vote for legislators that aren't going to put us in positions like this.

Maybe one of MSA's questions to perspective candidates should ask if they feel the MTFW&P's agency needs more legislative controls applied to it?

 

[Pierre]

Very good explanations. Many of the bills we fight are the result of one group getting whipped in the forum sportsmen are most active..the commission...and do an end around to the legislature. MOGA bills are a good example. They NEVER ask us to help on a bill...just come to the legislature trying to ram it up our backside. Any methodology is fair to them and thusly, their image problems. They have 2 paid full time lobbyists. We have to go on our own dime...many times, many dimes.
FWP has made some mistakes. The past director was a huge mistake. Some personnel make mistakes. But for an agency, the folks we work with are really good. Solid biologists and professionals.

 

[Sytes]

Info breaking down the mechanics in a manner to be reasonably understood by joes and janes would be a great read in a 'Bugle' magazine article.

What is described within this thread helps understand ~ better ~ how our fish and wildlife are managed. The process and the conflicts. I believe the article would have to stay very objective as the printed voice of MTFWP though to share the reason for decisions such as the B tags and Block Managment allocation of funds would be very interesting for many joes and janes. Anyhow, just rambling now...

Thanks. I believe it cleared a bit of the 'fog of war' for F&G politics.

 

[RobG]

There is a massive list of bills currently under review: http://fwp.mt.gov/fwpDoc.html?id=58194

I've been looking for something like this document. How do you get the most up-to-date version?

I've found that if you don' t like the way F&G is managing wildlife you REALLY won't like the way the legislature does it. Their constituents mostly see wildlife as a cost that needs to be minimized and good habitat as a liability.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I've been looking for something like this document. How do you get the most up-to-date version?

I've found that if you don' t like the way F&G is managing wildlife you REALLY won't like the way the legislature does it. Their constituents mostly see wildlife as a cost that needs to be minimized and good habitat as a liability.

Go to the LAWS page and select Fish & Wildlife under the categories. That will give you the most up to date list of introduced bills. Some bills like the BOO revamp don't show up. MWF also has a watch list you can get.